MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776903372 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30501-6

Social franchising: whatever happened to old-fashioned notions of evidence-based practice?

2017· letter· en· W2776903372 on OpenAlexaff
Zubia Mumtaz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careSocial determinants of healthPopularityAgency (philosophy)Economic growthPolitical scienceBusinessSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social franchising, which draws on principles of commercial franchising for achieving socially beneficial ends, is based on the premise that organising private sector health-care providers under a standardised, branded set of services will improve the quality and accessibility of services. The popularity of the idea can be gauged by its rapid growth worldwide: the number of social franchises have doubled every 4 years since 1994, and, by 2015, more than 90 such programmes existed in 40 low-income and middle-income countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.446
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.528
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4460.528
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.121
Scholarly communication0.0300.072
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0260.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207